Take Better Photos offers photographer's take on iPhone 5 capabilities

Take Better Photos has published an insightful look at the iPhone5, from a photographer's perspective. In keeping with the site's maxim that photography should be a joy, not a science exam, the article looks at how the latest handset behaves, compared to its predecessor (and compared to cameras including the Nikon D3). However, this photographic focus doesn't preclude some more technical detail about the new camera's program line and just how effective its 'dynamic low light mode' is.

Writer and photographer Dean Holland looks a the iPhone 5's additional features, which are worth investigating if you're thinking of moving to the new handset or planning to upgrade to iOS 6 to add the panorama function to your existing iPhone.

It's worth noting that the site is Australian, so any references to $ are Australian dollars (4% stronger than $US and 20% lower in value than one Euro).

Comments

If you are spending less than us$500 on a camera the iPhone plus a couple of apps is unbeatable, the images are lomo like with tons of mojo. Dslr's? just for work, too bulky and it screams please come and rob me!!Guess the only point and shoot cameras that are going to survive are the digital rangefinders with interchangeable lenses... for vacations, weekends and casual pictures I'll trade the fast prime look for the hipstamatic lomo look without even thinking.

To tell the truth, I'm waiting for a camera that can be used as a phone instead of the reverse. This way, I could take pictures decently while - why not - having a chat with a friend of mine without sacrifying the IQ which is the most important for any genuine photographer.

Apple removed the IR filter from the iPhone 5 and as a result it has a purple cast. Not well thought out in making the phone thinner. Lets see it's made in what appear to be slave labor camps by unhappy workers who rioted last week and it costs under $190.00 US to produce using many Samsung parts. LA Times sroty on purple cast http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-iphone-5-camera-purple-20120926,0,4988730.story

I found the purple flare to be about the same as for the iPhone 4s, so only mentioned it briefly in the article. Have Apple removed the IR filter? That would be a strange move!This purple looks to my eye more like flare, not IR contamination, but that's just an opinion.

For all those saying that the wireless communications ability of iphones and thier ability to run apps makes high end cameras irrevelant.... what do you have to say about wireless enabled DSLR's? Think of them as a removable high quality camera that can send higher quality images to your iphone....

There are no pat answers. The lines are blurred. You have the opportunity to choose what you want for your needs... we are not all the same.

Personally, I look forward to shooting in the field with a DSLR, wireless transfer to an Ipad where the image can be viewed and manipulated, and then sent back to the office.... and for a lot of inspection work, the Ipad camera is good enough.... Beats the heck out of having to carry around a heavy laptop.

For me these are tools to get the job done, it is not grounds for a religous war.

But, I can't imagine editing RAW on tablets. First, the display will not show the sRGB gamaut, and is very small. Second, the accuracy of a finger is only that much. Third, the current lack of high end editing software and fourth, the processing power to crunch 10-20Mb RAW files. I have the same idea as yours, but just saying it's probably going to be a while before that will be reality.

You are limited on a tablet..... but it sure is better than the tiny screen on the back of the camera..... You can confirm that you have good focus and good saturation, you can verify that the picture is good enough to edit later... Complex editing can be done by you later at home or work, or by a person you email the field pics to.

In my opinion camera phones are possibly the best invention since the week. Furthermore any device which can take a picture and eat connectable via Wi-Fi or Internet to move the pictures is a big advance over a DSLR camera. Without these features for most people who want to take pictures, dSLR cameras are pretty Impractical for most uses.

There is no argument in terms of quality. Obviously any pictures taken with the phone will be usable at very small sizes mostly on-screen or online. There can however be no question that a professional camera setup with lighting is going to be far better for any High quality images.

Upon this trend to try desesperately to prove that a "smart"phone is as good as or even better than a real camera, I can predict you that the day is soon when these "smart"phone superfans will decree that the screen of their toy is way better than a good 27 inches photo-dedicated-monitor (Eizo, beware !) and that its audio functions outclass any good stereo.

Hear me my friends, the time is coming for the freemasons to replace their cornerstone by a "smart"phone (as the latter doesn't need to be polished, it's a perfect-born item, superiorly created in order to lead anyone on his inner path to reach a next level of conscience).

They are NOT better than a "real" camera. But they ARE the best snapshot-camera-that-has-ever-been-invented because they are always with you. That right there is 99 percent of the battle, and so serious compromises, including image quality, are in order.

This site is compelled to review iphones (and when I write this, I mean smartphones in general) for the most important reason: Their portability has caused political revolutions and upheavals like no other imaging devise in history. No news gathering organization could DREAM of matching the impact of thousands of ordinary people videotaping world-changing events.

The insular, self-centered, moss-backed world of professional photography - a breed that I predict will be thoroughly extinct in five years - has let us all down in a big way by comparison. Hence the real reason for the expressed resentment of iphones. iphones have demonstrated that the emperor of professional photography has no clothes.

If this site wishes to survive, it will continue to discuss iphones, and ALL smartphones for that matter.

Look, I get it--you believe (not think, but believe) professional photography is made up of a bunch of snooty, snotty, arrogant, stuck-up, cold, heartless, brainless, talent-less, inspiration-less, bland, cooky-cutter, uninspired, insipid, "we sell it in 2 colors--black & black" types. I get it.

Phone cameras are the best thing since the wheel. Nikon--fold up your tents. Why did you introduce the D600? Who needs it--we've all got iPhones. Goody! Canon--pack it in. You're irrelevant now. Good luck with printers. Pentax--by by! Sony--what were you thinking buying Konica/Minolta instead of focusing solely on your Xperia smartphones? Olympus/Panasonic--why are you messing around with micro 4/3rds. DSLR quality in a compact CAMERA? Too late!

And, oh yes--professional photographers are SO yesterday.

That's funny. Professional photographers seem to be thriving around here. So are all of those companies.

I guess not everyone has drunk from your batch of Kool-Aid. Thank goodness. ESD.

I didn't say phone cameras are the best thing since the wheel. I said they were the best thing since autofocus, auto-exposure fuzzy logic 35 mm point and shoots.

Look, professional photographers and photo editors have been a restrictive craft/guild "gate-keeper" of the images we are allowed to see for many years. That role is firmly OVER.

Hence, the wailing and gnashing of teeth over iphones and facebook. Get over yourselves, I say! You will not remain relevant by attacking iphones when clearly, they are as adequate as 90 percent of all film cameras in the hands of 90 percent of all film photographers.

"Restrictive gate-keeper of images?" Well YEAH, of images they TOOK and spent time and effort creating, not snapping. Besides, people have been free to make their own images for years. "You press the button, we do the rest" was not a concept created 5 years ago, but over 100 years ago.

90% of people are happy with frozen foods, but for those who want the fresh-homemade stuff, it's not good enough. Same goes here.

"You will not remain relevant by attacking iphones when clearly, they are as adequate as 90 percent of all film cameras in the hands of 90 percent of all film photographers.".

Are you serious ? Until today, I didn't see a single "iconic" picture taken with a "smartphone" while we have recently reached the sixth or seventh generation of iPhone. It says enough about the adequacy of such a tool in "90% of the situations" where a "smartphone" could be as efficient as a normal camera.

You are right, professional photography is a breed that will be thoroughly extinct in five years and replaced by a bunch of brainless fanboys with a iPhone attached to their brains.And then those fanboys will be at Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq with their little toys covering the war and sending the images through their wireless connection, because that's what makes a iPhone better than a DSLR.

By the way, I have "real" lenses with almost 20 years that adapt to new "real" cameras. Let's see how long your toys will last :)

Yeah yeah... and James Cameron's next big movie will be shot with.. an iPhone, because who wants photographers/videographers shooting in 5K, RAW, and then add special effects. And guess what, you can wirelessly distribute it to the theaters around the world too! But wait a minute.. it doesn't work that way

Also, the 2025 NASA mission to an asteroid will be sent with, not special cameras, but an iPhone, because it can work in low light and extreme temperature/pressure conditions.. and guess what, it can even send pics wirelessly back to earth!! Wait a minute.. it cannot??

Photographers are dead.. because the iPhone can trigger multiple strobes at 1/2000 sync speed and.. Wait a minute. It doesn't even have a xenon flash?? what.. the LED "flash" gives different color casts on different iPhones?? what.. it can't even be mounted on a tripod??

Hmm.. alright then. You still have 5 years to get your iPhone to do all these things (at least) and get the photographers and their DSLRs extinct.

I have previously argued that an iphone has better imaging quality for most photographers than using most 35 mm cameras. Iphones thus have hit the bulls eye as the most revolutionary photographic devise in history.

And iphones are clearly superior to ANY other digital imaging devise in terms of interfacing with facebook and other internet photo sharing technology. They seamlessly link, like no other digital camera, with today's most important photo sharing systems. iphones fit "like a hand in a glove" with facebook, the way that 35 mm negatives were the perfect form factor for 6x9 prints that were the perfect size for most photo display books. None of these technologies are "art." And no 35 mm film camera had video capability, let alone high definition. Iphones are FAR better than ANY amateur video systems that predate digital.

And iphones, hands down, beat the pants off of Polaroid for instant viewing of photos and videos, and superior for viewing photos than a DSLR.

iphone made by Apple, a company that:Uses components made in near slave labour conditions by the Chinese company Foxconn.Overcharges its gullible customers for the dubiously sourced components that it has screwed together.Obtains patents under false pretences. Uses American law to bring spurious patent infringement rulings against its rivals.Has to get its very name from another company because it is too unimaginative to think of one itself.But the iphone is good for interfacing to a social networking site and is better than ancient 8mm movie film. Think I'll stick with my D800 and basic mobile phone.

The comparison between an iphone and an instamatic is false. The iphone is a far superior snapshot camera than an instamatic. It is much better than a disposable 35 mm camera. Lets be accurate where this camera fits before we demolish either it, or DSLR's.

It is likely better than 95 percent of the last big gasp of autofocus low- to medium quality electronically-controlled 35 mm point and shoot cameras, circa 1998. It has about as good if not better imaging quality than a Samsung 35 mm point and shoot I bought for backpacking, that proclaimed itself to have a "Carl Zeiss" lens and electronic whiz bang wizardry of the time like "fuzzy logic."

In fact in the hands of an untrained photographer, an iphone or any smartphone will get much better results than could be gotten with ANY 35 mm camera. Oh, how I wish I would have had an iphone rather than the motley collection of instamatics and lightweight 35 mm cameras that were in existence 30 years ago!

You got it, in terms of "the UNTRAINED photographer." I am NOT an untrained photographer--I'm not a professional, but I'm not an untrained photographer either. I like tools that are commensurate with that. I am not interested in what the untrained use. I wish them no ill will, but I don't give a rip what they like, & to insinuate that an iPhone can run with a Nikon D3 is beyond mental insanity.

And comparing its ability to a Nikon D3 is like comparing frozen pizza to that made fresh in a highly-regarded pizzeria. Hey, I like DiGorno, it raised the bar for what frozen pizza can taste like (can we say Jeno's?), but it still is no match to fresh-made from a pizzeria, and comparing them would be an insult to the real thing. There's no difference here.

And future - like next year - smartphones will achieve Nokia quality in all cellphones. That is an easy prediction to make.

Look, I WAS a professional photographer, if a news photographer counts. Worked 6 years as a professional photo-journalist. Got chased up a chute by an angry bull at a night rodeo once, throwing a Nikon F-1 wearing a 600 mm lens up and over the fence in front of me. Photographed the Vice President of the United States. Today I own a Nikon D-800, a Canon 5D Mark 3, a Nikon D-7000 and a Canon 1D Mark 3. They wear a plethora of L-series lenses and pro-level Nikon lenses. I still frequently shoot my Contax G2 with its lustrous Zeiss lenses. I had developed more than 50 rolls of medium format Chromes last year (shot with, for me a "new" Pentax), with 200 rolls of 35 mm Velvia. I consider myself a very- advanced amateur.

Whenever I got out for a photographic adventure, the cellphone stays home.

Yet I shot with my cellphone many magnitudes more photos than all of the above combined (A Droid Razr, for the record. I will not buy Apple products). Why?

When the photos clearly aren't even close to as good as any of the above? (the cameras above, with me shooting on my good days, are the 1 or 2 percent of the time when the effort and expense are actually worth having a system that is superior to a cellphone).

Because for the vast majority of time, the cellphone is "good enough," if but barely. And THAT in my mind, presages the stormy revolution. I'm an attorney now, so I can't wear an SLR to court, or leave one in the car in the parking lot. I'm an avid kayaker, skier and snowmobiler and for those sports on the inevitable sunny days (with loss and damage insurance firmly paid up to date), cellphone photography is so unobtrusive and effortless that it is a natural winner.

For 90 percent of snapshots with family and friends it is a cellphone shot or no shot at all.

I wonder what camera format is the best for large depth of field, short shutter-speed photos in ambient light? I'll speculate that good small-sensor compacts (or possibly micro-four thirds?) will be the best, but I expect that the outcome will vary with the exact depth-of-field and shutter speed needed, and the dynamic range you can tolerate.

I'd love to see someone test it and find out.

Before trying it myself, I expected that the better sensor of the D3 would trump the 6-stop advantage of the smartphone at that depth-of-field in the article, but I was suprised to find that it didn't.

It was a Canon EOS 600D, ISO 6400, 1/8s f/4. My wobbly hands holding the phones were the limitation forcing the high ISO! To give a sense of how dark is was, the iPhone screens were on almost minimum brightness, so that they matched the ambient.

I agree with the article that the 4s does has finer detail over the 5, as you can see the smearing is the new thing even in some apps does this as well. nothing major to get all worked up about, the size and speed is the top seller on this one. software can do much more than what the 5 can and has always bin doing. only buy it if you need it or of course your a fan. Im no fan of apple products but I can say they are well made, its sad to see how long things get before they hit a good market for the user to be satisfied. Photography has many different means to different people, but im sure it will get to the point where phones will no longer be stressed as oh its a toy, cause its not a toy its a small computer that we all take with us every day sending emails, capturing memories as we go along, there are many areas that a dslr is just not acceptable and a phone fits the bill for the discrete photographer or journalist. It will always be the person behind the machine get that straight.

- So if this is a photography site and worries about at least the top 2 photography-gear in any category instead of just one of it (notice, I didn't say top 1), then why only the iPhone? Why not list other camera phones' articles? Why the bias towards iPhone? You should either open up people's perspectives by posting on a wider spectrum of camera phones (like the awesome job you do with actual photography-gear) or not post any of them at all.

- Most of the photos my friends take is of their kids moving around in lower then appropriate lighting, indoors. Those ghostly cellphone camera pics (and the number of likes and comments they get) sickens me.

I'm a hobbyist (gone up to using multiple strobes). Sorry, calling it photography while taking pictures with a phone camera is just incorrect. It's like calling a 7th grade student learning physics a physicist!

@PeiasdfDon't get me wrong there. I love and respect DPR and it's been one of my goto places for the past 3 years. Just never posted anything until today.

As for this news article... just search here for "iPhone" and you'll find way more than 100 news articles. Then compare that result with anything else that is also leading in the market (eg. HTC, which by the way gives you a lot more control over the camera params and are just as innovative). The difference in the numbers will speak for themselves. But lately it seems to be getting better here on DPR at least.

(..contd) What really irritates me is the blind, unfair, undeserved, always-somehow-so-automatically-biased, free marketting that the iPhone/iPad gets. Not that I'm jealous, but that most of it is just baseless. If an alien were to look down upon earth and see what consumer mobile communication products there are, he/she/it would have no problems being convinced that iPhone is the only one available, with no competition; and that if at all there are others, they are crap. Thanks to the fanboys worshiping it and thanks to such articles getting prominence on reputable sites.

There is a reason people choose the iPhone while forsaking other choices which may actually be better at certain things. The iPhone integrates *perfectly* with their home Mac. Or if they don't have a Mac, if they use iTunes, the iPhone integrates perfectly with that. If they have an iPhone but do not use a Mac and do not use iTunes... they soon will!!

ALL other smartphones must divide the remaining market of computer users who do not use Mac and do not use iTunes.

There goes another Apple fan, unaware of the rest of the world. The rest of the 92% of the world comprises of Windows.. with no restrictions like iTunes!! If that's not success, what is?? Ofcourse.. you must be having a Mac!!

You are good at assumptions. You see, I never mentioned of having problems with people buying iPhones. I have a problem when review sites making it seem like iPhones are the best. Which it is not by any scale. And can tell because I go deep into technology... really deep.

@Peiasdf Don't too rely on the news. You are too remote to know the reality.If you know Chinese, read more from the internet, especially those from Mainland China; and listen more from the radio stations in this region.Then, you definitely would know more about the reality.Never guess!

The camera itself is immaterial to the final result: a great photograph is a great photograph. A skilled photographer can produce a great photograph using a pinhole camera or an iPhone, if need be. Many smartphone users merely wish to record their lives in a documentary fashion and only care about how the image appears on Facebook.

Right ! But everybody is not a genius of photography, and that's why we need good cameras. Moreover, good photographers rarely choose to take pictures with bad tools, they are like musicians, they try to use instruments that fit their skill. So why should we consider instruments not good enough for the best of us, and that are not able to make us better than we are now ?

By the way, on can use two yogurt pots with a thread in between as a very effective phone, but I doubt this sort of system is introduced on phones-related-web-sites. To make a call, one usually prefers the best tool avaible, and that's the same for photography. Isn't it ?

A phone is not a camera. And DPreview is less and less and less a site for serious photographers. Perhaps the writers of this site will one day understand that when you try to be all things to all people you end up as nothing for anyone.

Are you saying one article comparing phone cameras nullifies all the other articles talking about "serious" gear? You seem to live in the fantasy-land where skill level is related to the complexity and price of your gear; where BMW owners are inherently better drivers than Fiat owners, and you cannot cook a quality meal without an induction stove...

You chose to click on the article instead of just ignore it. Why did you do that if you are not interested in the subject?

Again !?? An article about phone-photography again while there has been neither preview nor review of (may be) real camera that deserved to be seriously taken in account: Fujifilm Sx-1, the first-of-its-kind 2.8 lens equiped Panasonic Fz200, and almost every recent Pentax cameras (except the K-30 which had just a preview). As for Ricoh, it's as if it didn't exist at all.

If we are talking of "real photography", why not talking about "real cameras" instead of losing so much time on gadgets that occasionaly are good enough in good hands ? If the "photographic topic" is so vast, why not reviewing every Olga-like cameras, every toy-cameras launched on the market, every watch/pen/sunglasses/lighter/anything that is equiped with a spy camera too ?

A decent enough review. In good light, my Samsung S3 is probably at least on a par while the iPhone probably has the advantage as the sun goes down. Neither look like beating Nokia any time soon. Speaking of Nokia; they really do need to get their best sensor into a top of the line Windows phone ASAP before Samsung or Apple close the gap!

It is possible to take very nice images with camera phones in good light and in the right hands, not doubt about it. But unlike the iPhone there is a lot of camera control options in some Nokia phones like Lumia 800 etc., but don't expect miracles except maybe from the the new Nokia 808 PureView which seems to be a lot better than the rest.

Personally I would never be satisfied with a camera phone alone, due to bad ergonomics and limited use except in good light. But then again a lot of people are satisfied with phone images - probably the same type of people that were perfectly happy with a Kodak Instamatic in the 60s.

I don't think most photographers would be satisfied with just an iPhone, but there are several things to consider. Yes, for someone who was happy with Instamatics, Polaroids, cheap P&S 110 film cameras, and disposable 35mm cameras, it's a great thing, but for the photographer is can be a nice thing in that it's a camera that you always have with you (assuming you're the type of person who always carries their cell). I don't expect a phone to ever be as good as my Hasselblad H4D or Canon 5D, but if it can take decent shots, if I'm out somewhere and I see something, great. I remember my first cell phone that had a camera, it was a 0.3 or 1.3 MP motorola that took the noisiest pictures you've ever seen, even in decent lighting. Technology has come a long way in a short time.

See, that's the thing. To me, a camera phone is this decade's version of an Instamatic, & when it was Instamatic vs a 35mm SLR, actual photographers wouldn't be caught DEAD with an Instamatic. It wasn't a matter of being "snotty" about the snapshooters, it was fine for them--great, but if you were someone with aspirations for serious or even hobbyist photography, you got a tool commensurate with those aspirations--Pentax K1000, Nikon FM etc, and you used that sort of thing & ONLY that sort of thing.

It also used to be if you were a photographer but didn't bring a camera, you could be chided "you didn't bring your camera? You're a PHOTOGRAPHER for Pete's sake." I think it's a valid point myself. I understand about personal & play-time, & DSLRs are bulky, but there's always mirrorless or (say) a Sony RX100. I'm just a hobbyist, but if I forget to bring my Olympus E-PM1, that's on ME to be more of the mindset to make sure I have it with me. Sorry, but using a camera phone is beneath me.

The camera phone is nice to have for the immediacy of sharing with friends and family. I used mine extensively, with a daily roamed data bundle, on my most recent holiday. And nothing beats the bragging rights when it comes to the poor sods at work with nothing but the British weather on the other side of the office windows :)

"The camera phone is nice to have for the immediacy of sharing with friends and family.".Excellent definition of what is phone-photography ! It's to the "serious" photography what brawling is to singing. As one can understand, the approach is a little bit different.

"To put these differences into perspective, before the release of the iPhone 5, we asked 50 non-photographers to compare 15" prints of a similar image from each of these cameras, to work out which were the cheap ones and which the expensive ones and which was the iPhone 4s. 15" prints aren't a stringent photographic test, but they're bigger than most iPhone photos will ever be printed. Over half of people placed the iPhone 4s above the Nikon D3. The picture quality from the iPhones is 'good enough' for most people."

This is the important finding. When light is good and your subject is not moving fast, don't fool yourself that you need an expensive equipment.

Over half of the people who placed iPhone above the D3 are those who think that a good photo is lots of contrast and saturation in a sunny day. Besides the biased reviewer ought know that photos straight from a professional camera are professional and not with disney colorful look. that's why they have raw, so that we can fine tune them later.if you want to shoot photos only with sun and from frozen subjects, go ahead, waste hundreds of dollars in a toy, which will be obsolete in a few months.

The iPhone is expensive if you're buying it just for a camera. And if you're buying it just for the camera, I think it's foolish. If however you need a smart phone for your cell, email, web browsing, and apps, a music player, having the camera is a nice bonus. I don't think the iPhone is the best camera in a cell phone (the PureView 808 I think has that title) but apple has been pretty good at making a well rounded phone that does everything well and seamlessly. If you want more controls though you're probably going to want to go to an Android base phone.

You know what, madeinlisboa ? I love you ! You're so right ! These "smartphones" are not just too expensive, they are junktools too as they turn you into a zombie who spends his day long texting stupidities, calling for nothing just to make profitable your as-much-as-you-can-phone plan, taking inept pictures of anything just to prove yourself you didn't buy this ruinous toy in vain, and overall, this fetish leads you to go through any spot like a blind man walking the eyes always stuck on the little screen that hypnotises you and prevents you from living your life.

In another words, the "smartphone" is most of the time nothing but a tool for not-so-smart people, it's a real photographer's enemy.

I think these phones do a good job of replacing point and shoots for carry everywhere cameras for most enthusiasts. The fact is, the image quality in good light between this, and a PS, is not that big when viewed at internet size images. Add to that the convenience of being able to instantly upload, and the much bigger convenience of not having an entirely separate device in my pocket (I mean, where do you put your keys if you have a camera in one pocket and a phone in the other?), and the camera phone really makes everyday, everywhere photography convenient.

I have my nice gear for when IQ is the main concern, but most days, when I'm just about, IQ is not the main concern -- svelteness is.

Well, you said it all: "most days, when I'm just about, IQ is not the main concern".

Does one here (I mean on dpreview, both webmasters and readers like us) do not care of IQ ? If it's the case, what are you giving a damn to the tool you use, why losing your time reading a website that deals with the "best cameras at time" ?

If one just wants to snap around in good day light, that's ok. If one wants to take pictures of his girlfriend doing the V in front of the Tour Eiffel or the Gizeh pyramid, it's alright. If one wants to take pictures of his birthday cake and to "share" it with his Facebook contacts, it's all allowed.

No sin using a "smart"phone but please, don't let this gadgets parasite good camera related websites, they are still omnipresent, not too relevant, and good websites are not so numerous to be spoiled.

Unfortunately iPhone's, Samsung's S III or Nokia's PureView image quality CAN NOT justify the HIGH PRICES these products are sold, of course a photo is up to the photographers perspective, but i would agree with madeinlisboa these are toys, expensive toys for what they offer !!!!

You do not buy any of these just to have a camera. You buy these to be a Phone, a portable Web browser, a music player that can hold thousands of songs and play internet radio stations from around the world, a video player, an email/text messaging device, a video conferencing tool, a journal/notebook, a calenadar/reminder, a GPS/map, calculator, a price checker/comparer, gaming device, restaurant locator, etc... if you use if for some of those, then adding on the camera is a nice bonus. And if you're interested in photography and do need to upgrade your phone, it's not unreasonable to concider getting one with a decent camera. It's rediculous to buy a $200 (plus 2 year cellphone contract) camera with this quality, but if you already need a smartphone and will be paying for the contract, the nicer camera may be nice. Keep in mind the free (with contract) iPhone 4 had a decent camera, and the $99 (with contract) 4s has an almost-as-good as an iPhone 5 camera for $100 less.

One of my japanese friend has been victim of a pickpocket here in the posh district of Ginza (Tokyo). Her "smart" phone contained her whole list of contacts, mails, photographs, her "electronic-wallet" and her train-pass paid for a month.

She has lost a lot of money, a lot of informations, and she needed almost two months to recover from her stress.

You can do ALL THAT with a $150 phone without a 2 or 3 or 4 year contract ("buying" a phone with a contract is much more expensive than buying the same device unlocked) and as wiliamJ says above smartphones are tools for non-smart people !!!. I've seen printed photos from Nokia's 808pureview (which by the way has a lot better camera than this iPhone is equipped ) and they are not better compared to the prints of my 2 year old and 150euros Compact camera !!!!!

WilliamJ, why are you disseminating the lies? We smart people used smartphones, and PDAs before them, since Palm and Windows CE. iPhone made the utility of PDA easy to use, and hence popular. Nothing is wrong with it.The only requirement for Mensa is to have IQ 2 standard deviations higher than average or over as measured by accepted IQ tests (130 or higher). Which is not that high, but you clearly do not have.

ROFLOL ....."WE SMART"..... It's good to tell yourself how SMART you are ..... at the end of the day you might believe it ...... LOL 130...... LOL not even 130 grams of brain ( if you know how much 130 grams are

To peevee1: Oh, my ! I thought the humour was obvious in my text, as I've written "to be confirmed" while providing a wiki link that makes all clear, and as the word "rhumour" contained a fake typo - in case of - I didn't believe one would not be able to read between the lines.

But it seems the first degree is still too strong for some of us. Probably the result of an overuse of "smart"phone ?

It's because of these toys that photography is becoming a joke. Comparing these pieces of crap with cameras is offensive for anyone who's life income depends on (real) photography.If you want good pictures and little space in your travel gear, get a p&s. I can't even imagine why people waste so much money in a toy.

I can't stand anymore this iCrap disease spreading even in photography sites. Time to forget dpreview and move to real photography sites.

It's interesting that someone who is so concerned about the value of 'real' photography places so much stock in the gear they use. Surely photography is an art form, and just because someone makes a living from it doesn't make it less so. The camera used is simply a tool to capture one's vision. I'm sure if you had put a 'toy' paintbrush in Leonardo Da Vinci's hands he would still have created something spectacular. Instead of whining about the technology and how the market is going, maybe focus on improving your art and creativity ;)

I like my iPhone 4s because of its simplicity, the nice grain and good colours=) I like photo jokes;) I like pros because they give us fabulous images wether they use a phone or a 60 000 € Hasselblad:)

I am sure aficionados said the same when roll film replaced plate, and when 35mm first came around, when colour neg replaced slides and when all the other consumer formats attempted to gain a market. Photography is about creating images. I could not care less how it is done, and if it means more people start looking at the world around them, recording and interpreting it, then I am all for the Iphone and its increasingly competent camera. In reality, the market is heading to a point where we will soon be using cameras with phone built in, not the way round it is at the moment.

Other than the misspelling of "who's," I couldn't agree more with (madeinlisboa), and I'm only a hobbyist. What is so ridiculous is these people that want to have their work analyzed right alongside a professional & to be on equal footing with them, but yet they make it clear they have no interest in learning any techniques, and call you an "elitist" because you think there's a difference between snapshots & true photography.

That is a complete insult to the art. It really is. Can you imagine me trying to have people analyze my food, which I've microwaved from a "dinner in a bag" Stouffer's thing I bought at WalMart Supercenter, against people who've been to culinary school & take the time to make everything fresh & from scratch? That would be a total insult to their craft. Have a little respect for people who actually KNOW what they're doing. No we're not all chefs, but have a little respect for those who in fact ARE, or are at least pursuing that route the best they can.

@larrytusaz, madeinlisboaI agree, it is important to distinguish between "taking a snap" and "taking a photo", but then not everybody with an iPhone (or any cameraphone, for that matter) is a snapshooter.I'm sure that we can manage to find some serious photog with a cameraphone and, better yet, to think of a situation in which he has no gear at all with him (let's pretend he's hanging out with friends, for instance) and he sees something that strikes his fancy, and wants to take a photo (not a snapshot of one of his buddies drinking directly from the beer cask).It's not a bad thing that the sorry excuse for a camera on his phone has improved over the course of the years, so that the final product is just about decent instead of completely sh***y.

Dude u are the same dinosaur that said auto focus was crap , the same dinosaur that said film will never b replaced by digital ... Everytime the actual art of photography shifts and moves forward ..some dead piece of wood like u breaks out the soap box and proclaims "these toys " or something so stupidly limited that has handcuffed photography from the growth and acceptance as an art form it should have .,now get on ur ice flow and go off with the rest of the dinosaurs out to sea ...u won't b missed by those of us excited about the future of this fine medium ..

hehehe you really sound outdated and frustrated calling those devices crap, this is a future, believe or not, and will be covered especially in content published through online media like dp... printed papers will be next...

The sad truth is that nowadays your neighbours would be alerted quicker in case of zombies attack if you updated FB status rather than shouted out on the street... wake up!

and if you take 'good' pictures using the heavy-gear only, it must be frustrating indeed, if only to loosing a decent photo opportunity just because your 'good photos' gear is gathering dust at home, but phone, phone is in most cases with you anyway.

The thing that I think (madeinlisboa) is getting at, & I agree with, is the "blurring of lines" between snapshooting vs photography, & how you're called a "dinosaur" or an "elitist" for saying that those who seriously persue their craft & take it seriously are different than the "clickers" who expect to just point & shoot and get a masterpiece, they don't even TRY to learn the basics.

As that lady said in "Working Girl" to her friend who was working in a new job that was perceived as being over her head--"sometimes I dance in my underwear, that doesn't make me Madonna." Exactly. Someone who's put effort into learning techniques, how to work REAL gear & knows some basics is on a whole different plane than "hipsters" pointing & clicking with a phone.

I make good food in my kitchen with "quick & easy dinner bags," but I show RESPECT to those who labor & make everything from scratch. The same applies here. Show some RESPECT to someone who actually knows how to use a REAL camera.

@ larrytusazThis is from your website: "I currently shoot "artistically" with the Nikon D5000 and "casually" (with my wife) using a Nikon D3000--both are SLRs (we have graduated beyond using point & shoots and most assuredly do NOT shoot with camera phones). Both cameras are d-SLRs and are easily capable of plenty, but the 12mp D5000 being the "better" one is reserved for "artistic" shots, whereas the D3000 being the "lesser" one is the "everyday" camera....."

I am surprised you call yourself a serious photog with just a D3000 and D5000 when "pros" use FF and medium. That is a complete insult to photography according to you right?

Be humble and learn. I am sure many many members here can shoot better than you using smartphone/P&S.

"Be humble & learn." That's my point exactly. People using smartphones thinking they're photographers ought to learn how to work a REAL camera, read some books about lighting & composition and "golden light"--and THEN get back to me. The people I respect are ones who learned on cameras like the Pentax K1000 or even a Nikon D40--you know, something REAL, and made efforts towards learning lighting etc, as opposed to just doing the "Hipstomatic" preset on their phone & thinking it makes them some-BODY.

A D3000 & D5000 may not be the ultimate, but at least they're DSLRs. And hey, if someone can outdo me even if they're using a smartphone, by all means--but then, it would beg the question, if you're THAT good, what in the world are you doing using a smartphone instead of a DSLR in the first place? You don't see LeBron James playing basketball in flip-flops. You don't see Tiger Woods golfing with wooden sticks. You don't see Michael Phelps swimming in an above-ground pool. What gives?

Loving the discussion! Just to give my personal reply to larrytusaz's question: when I'm shooting professionally, I use the best tools available to give the best value to my clients. Every job is my audition for the next. But when shooting outside of that business imperative, for me, photography is not fundamentally a competitive activity, and I get no less pleasure from shooting on a phone to a compact to medium format.

There are loads of thiings that smartphones just can't (yet) shoot in the classical manner, and Mike Walters lists them perfectly: low-light, sport, wildlife, and I'll add classical portraiture, fine-art, studio work, anything needing a different lens, shallow depth of field etc. etc. You'd go bonkers using a smartphone to shoot these normally. But some things it does well, and I was stunned to find one (contrived, rare) situation where it can equal a good dedicated camera.

I agree. If photography is someone's passion (lucky ones when it's rev. stream as well), decent camera on a device that you carry on every ocasion can be priceless, if only to capture something lasting fleetingly or to remember the scene to possibly return with better gear...iPhone 5 camera finally seems to meet my basic demands re. picture quality even in low-light (on smallish printouts).

The screen is best though, god sent in bright sunlight and I wish my camera sported such thing!

Last but not least, the odd aspect ratio of this phone-camera can enforce interesting composition shots (with all it's limitations obviously. This, plus 'panorama' and possibility to get quite narrow dof in closeups add fun and leaves room forsome creativity in my opinion...

Of course any phone-camera today still can not match more than 10 yrs old digital camera (partuiculary 4MP Olympus 4040), but iPhone 5 is bloody close;-)

The iphone seems a little limited in its controls; But I agree that the best phone is the one you have with you. I often feel perfectly happy not to lug my DSLR and gear with me on account of having a decent phone camera (Nokia N8 - which allows a lot of user control).

I think that the issue is that everyone who compares smartphones to dedicated cameras are not really taking into account the fact that it is the photographer that makes the biggest difference. I would imagine that the majority of iPhone photographs are taken by people who have little or no idea about photography and are literally just pointing thier iPhone at something they think is interesting (usually themselves) and taking the shot. People who invest in a DSLR system will take time to learn photography and will take far superior pictures regardless of the system. But you may ask why would serious photographers not chose an iPhone ...well it is all round performance. On a bright sunny day it might be difficult to tell the difference when looking at the resulting prints (well, thats if you can see the iPhone screen and compose a shot properly in bright sunlight) but for low light, sport, wildlifeand general flexibility the DSLR is way above the iPhone.

I have used my very nice Lumix P&S exactly twice since buying an iPhone 4S over a year ago. I don't consider it better than my Lumix or any other camera. [Or any other phone] But it's with me all the time and it's a great photographic device. When it's not up to the task - i use my Lumix. Which tells me that more often than not that it's up to the task at hand. It also makes for a different kind of photography, More everyday fixed focal length snapshots which is fun in itself. I was late to the smartphone thing and I have no particular brand allegiance but I was genuinely and pleasantly surprised by the camera in the 4S.

This is a very weird point we have reached to say at least... More and more "photography news" about iphone cover the first page of dpreview so often, that it started getting annoying. IF and only if, iphone was a pure camera phone (get my hint?) then I wouldn't have a problem. But this unjustified hype over apple's I-can-do-everything-but-nothing-I-do-is-really-something device becomes more than suspicious. There are thousands of sites for smartphones, we really dont need dpreview trying to convince us that iphone is a good camera. It's not. Period. Please get back on track doing what you do best. Covering the amazing world of photography...

Saying that the iPhone being the #1 camera of use is a reason for an enthusiast site like DPreview to cover them is like saying that McDonald's being the #1 fast food chain in the world is a reason for a site/magazine devoted to Culinary art to talk about them every 2.5 milliseconds.

I used to own an iPhone 4S, now I own the iPhone 5. I also own a D700 and a 17-35 f/2.8 Nikkor lens. Only a FOOL would think the two could be used in a comparison. What a joke of comparison by including the Nikon D3. I'll take better pictures with my iPhone in my dreams.

So right ! But don't forget that "'we're living in a world of fools" at least according to the Bee Gee's (famous neither-greeks-nor-frenchs- nor-germans-nor-chinese-nor-russians-nor-indians philosophers).

DisplayMate just released article about iPhone 5 color display and not surprisingly, it outperformed Galaxy S by a large margin. iPhone 5 has perfect colors and has accurate gamut and doesn't need re-calibration out of the box.

@Peiasdf: The only reason nobody uses AMOLED monitors is that they don't really exist yet. For now, a large AMOLED panel would be far too expensive. The technology itself is much better than any LCD out there, and I can wait to use a real AMOLED monitor!

As for color accuracy, there are a lot of other factors involved, besides the panel technology itself. And remember, phones are not really built for photo editing, therefore comparing their color accuracy is a useless exercise.

I use the camera on an Ipad a lot at work.... It is great to use for looking around corners in an equipment rack. it is great for a quick snap or two to serve as a reminder as to how you put something together or took it apart, but when it is time for real doccumentation, out comes the Canon....

Well, for that purpose, I've been using my cellphone camera down to 0.3Mpixels (it's a 5Mp). Since I don't download the pictures, I only watch them on my phone screen or send them over chat for others to see on their cellphones, I haven't found the need of larger pictures. Do I need an iDevice? Clearly not.

An excellent article on the type of camera that is now the most commonly used for digital photography. Most of the comments appear to overlook the potential for business productivity use of cameras in Smartphones and Tablets. Using software such as Mobile Data Studio, useful images for reports can be captured alongside data, and images can be sketched on to highlight aspects for attention back in the office. Cameras in Smartphones and Tablets are being used worldwide for home inspections, asbestos audits in buildings, asset tracking, graffiti identification and removal, weed identification, safety hazard recording and many other applications which cannot be efficiently performed by using a DSLR disconnected from associated detailed data collection. Such images and information are sent through the mobile phone system for real time publication of reports in secure webs and in print. Look up from pixel peeping folks, a whole new world of practical digital photography has arrived.

Problem isn't in smart phones not fitting well to that kind of documenting.Problem is this overhyping of smart phones completely replacing other types of cameras.

I've myself used phones to similar documenting as Donald few posts above.But if I wanted camera to carry always with me there are plenty of pocketable compacts with better capabilities and very desirable functions.For example Tough serie of Olympus and other ruggedized cameras which don't mind about rain or humidity.Or Panasonic DMC-ZS15 like compacts offering bigger zoom range starting from wider angle.After all until cell phone can be carried as conveniently as wrist watch it needs something with pocket which can as well hold compact camera.

What is a 'REAL' camera? And what do you mean by better? Better, an exciting image or better scientifically? To me, better is exciting, generally unposed, spontaneous. Camera phones are meant for those moments. If you want a studio shot get a RED, 5D3, ... are they 'REAL'?!

Seriously, does anyone know of a global filter that runs in your browser and is capable of filtering-out whatever you specify?

For example, I want to filter-out Apple and any other name related to their products, so that browsing the web appears as if they do not exist. If it spots an ad, blog, tag, keyword, or in fact anything that would bring-up anything to do with Apple or their products, it would block it?

Is there such a tool available?

I'm truly sick of seeing and reading about iPads, iPods, and iPhones everywhere I look. It's like a disease that is ruining my enjoyment online (seriously), and I feel like I have the right to go about my life without being subjected to it.

It's like having an irritating fly whizzing around my head all the time.

I've even had to unsubscribe from a software/hardware developer recently because they stopped making real hardware with buttons and sliders, and started all this Apple touch-device crap instead.

I agree completely. The 2 things that bug me (a) as you alluded to, people starting to design certain aspects of their products based on how Apple does it, when I CAN'T STAND how Apple does it (non-replaceable batteries for one) and (b) people acting as if every single thing that exists is because Apple invented it. I fully expect people to start declaring that Apple invented oxygen & the wheel. I even have made my personal page that of Calvin (of Calvin & Hobbes) urinating all over Apple. I'm looking into having T-shirts printed with that one it as well. I really am sick & tired of people being so hypnotized by everything they do & say.

@PeiasdfOut of curiosity, how far is the Apple store from the nuthouse?

Reason I ask is that it could come in real handy for you: You could pay Apple to control you buy purchasing one of their products, then you could nip around the corner to the nuthouse and get certified, right away!

And hey, fight this fact as you might, but anyone who believes their iPhone is a better camera than a Nikon D3 is not only certifiable, they are clinically insane!

@CraigI clicked because I just could not help myself.

I know I'm in for some mind-boggling stupidity whenever I see stuff like that, and just cannot resist visiting for the giggle. I honestly don't post in these threads to annoy anyone, or burst anyone's bubble, it's just that the level of stupidity is so intense now, it's practically impossible to restrain myself from commenting on it.

"But technical quality is only one type of quality. Henri Cartier-Bresson spoke of his camera as a “sketchpad” for recording intuition and spontaneity. He was constantly amused by what he saw as peoples' “insatiable craving” for sharpness."

A comment from the review that all Pixel Peepers should be reminded of!!